Potential of NBA market in India (split)

[jalfa]

while the point that the Kings will have difficulties gaining fans in India as long as they keep being bad is fair (imagine watching this year's squad without having any prior relation to the team, would you have enjoyed that?), I don't think that that is the point. the BOG would want Vivek as an owner, because he might be able to help *them* get access to the Indian market. Jerry Reinsdorf does not give a damn whether or not the Kings are successful/make money in a new market, he very much does give a damn about acquiring connections that might help him sell Rose jerseys to roughly 1 billion people.

 

[hoopster]

Being from Japan and having gone to college in the studies of East Asia, I can tell you full and well that soccer was anything but ingrained in the culture of that entire region.

Well Asia is a big continent, it still isn't that popular in India, its the most popular spectator sport in China and continues to grow substantially every year. Russia is one of the best teams in the world at the moment, the whole Middle East is soccer crazy, Indonesia the 4th most populated country in the world, is absolutely crazy over the sport. Japan is baseball crazy, but its still a popular sport in Japan. Japan has been traditionally one of the best Asian teams. South Korea in the same boat as Japan.

 

[hoopster]

I've split this off into its own thread. Interesting how persistent hoopster is to downplay the potential impact of Vivek's ownership on the market for the NBA in India, isn't it? Almost like he's desperate to cancel out one of our bonus points while carefully ignoring the FACT that Stern has wanted globalization in that area for some time and was actually in Mumbai quite recently.

Since hoopster's first post was "I'm a Seattle fan" it seems pretty clear that he has a different agenda than we have.

Just sayin'...

If you read through my posts I haven't disagreed that the NBA doesn't want Vivek, I also clearly stated that I hope Seattle is awarded an expansion team and Sacramento can keep its team. Do you have a problem with these statements? As someone who currently lives abroad, and follows the NBA in a foreign country, I am trying to explain what people abroad want to see when the NBA features itself on television. I was merely trying to debunk the idea that 1.2 billion Indians will only follow the Kings and ignore the fact that there are a number of better teams and players in the league at the moment who are significantly more marketable than the Kings. I think Vivek can help grow the NBA brand, but that is separate point being discussed from people who believe that the Kings being owned by an Indian means that everyone in India becomes a Kings fan, that a substantial portion of NBA games in India will be the Kings, thats just not the way it works. Someone earlier said that the Kings being owned by Vivek means that the Kings merchandise will explode in India but I just don't believe it, just like I wouldn't believe that the Suns being owned by a Brazilian investor would have any effect on the popularity of the Suns in Brazil.

If you all have a problem with me engaging in honest debate on here thats fine I will leave, but I've been civil as possible on the issues surrounding the two cities, and haven't once make a comment that would be insulting to the efforts of Sacramento to keep its team.

 

[mac]

Being from Japan and having gone to college in the studies of East Asia, I can tell you full and well that soccer was anything but ingrained in the culture of that entire region.

Maybe not so much in China and Japan, but the soccer culture is definitely very very strong in parts of Southeast Asia. Korea too if I'm not wrong, or maybe I'm just thinking that because of Pak Ji Sung.

 

[Tetsujin]

Maybe not so much in China and Japan, but the soccer culture is definitely very very strong in parts of Southeast Asia. Korea too if I'm not wrong, or maybe I'm just thinking that because of Pak Ji Sung.

The term "ingrained" comes with the implication that the sport's been a part of the cultural lexicon for generations which, I was merely pointing out, isn't all that true.

 

[mac]

The term "ingrained" comes with the implication that the sport's been a part of the cultural lexicon for generations which, I was merely pointing out, isn't all that true.

Well sure if you want to be really technical about it ... but I think the general idea is that the sport has a strong and large following

 

[Cwebb#4]

Well, as an American, my opinions about soccer are biased from Basketball, Football, and baseball, so I'm not a proper judge.

 

[VF21]

...I was merely trying to debunk the idea that 1.2 billion Indians will only follow the Kings and ignore the fact that there are a number of better teams and players in the league at the moment who are significantly more marketable than the Kings. I think Vivek can help grow the NBA brand, but that is separate point being discussed from people who believe that the Kings being owned by an Indian means that everyone in India becomes a Kings fan, that a substantial portion of NBA games in India will be the Kings, thats just not the way it works. Someone earlier said that the Kings being owned by Vivek means that the Kings merchandise will explode in India but I just don't believe it, just like I wouldn't believe that the Suns being owned by a Brazilian investor would have any effect on the popularity of the Suns in Brazil...

The idea that a large number of new Indian viewers might FIRST watch the Kings because of the link between them and the Kings via Vivek Ranadive is a valid point, one which David Stern himself has eluded to more than once. With Vivek's ties to his home country, it's logical that he will help promote the NBA with his own team brand. Using the example of Brazil isn't accurate for the simple reason that Brazilians are already well aware of basketball and the NBA. We're talking about entry into a new and vibrant market for the sport of basketball, with Vivek Ranadive and the Kings being at the front. And that will appeal to the BoG for the simple reason that it will get the nose of the camel into the tent, so to speak. Once the path has been cleared, other teams will of course follow. The Kings may not be the favorite team in India, but there is no reason not to believe that they will help open the door for the entire NBA.

If you all have a problem with me engaging in honest debate on here thats fine I will leave, but I've been civil as possible on the issues surrounding the two cities, and haven't once make a comment that would be insulting to the efforts of Sacramento to keep its team.

I don't have a problem either as a moderator or a Kings fan with your posts. I think it's only fair, however, that everyone reading them is aware that you are a self-proclaimed Seattle fan so your viewpoint is going to be slanted in that direction. We all have our biases, so that's not a dig. It's just a fact of life.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

while the point that the Kings will have difficulties gaining fans in India as long as they keep being bad is fair (imagine watching this year's squad without having any prior relation to the team, would you have enjoyed that?).

Actually, I believe it is irrelevant and would point to the Kings first 10+ seasons in Sacramento when they were quite bad but sold out every single game and received tons of interest in the region. When something is brand new to someone, they'll remain intrigued and interested, despite the lack of success, especially when there is a personal connection.

 

[jalfa]

Actually, I believe it is irrelevant and would point to the Kings first 10+ seasons in Sacramento when they were quite bad but sold out every single game and received tons of interest in the region. When something is brand new to someone, they'll remain intrigued and interested, despite the lack of success, especially when there is a personal connection.

there's a ton of difference between watching a team on TV and in person, though. the whole gameday experience is totally different and a lot more exciting. switching on the TV to see this particularly frustrating brand of basketball can get old very fast.

 

[kennadog]

If you read through my posts I haven't disagreed that the NBA doesn't want Vivek, I also clearly stated that I hope Seattle is awarded an expansion team and Sacramento can keep its team. Do you have a problem with these statements? As someone who currently lives abroad, and follows the NBA in a foreign country, I am trying to explain what people abroad want to see when the NBA features itself on television. I was merely trying to debunk the idea that 1.2 billion Indians will only follow the Kings and ignore the fact that there are a number of better teams and players in the league at the moment who are significantly more marketable than the Kings. I think Vivek can help grow the NBA brand, but that is separate point being discussed from people who believe that the Kings being owned by an Indian means that everyone in India becomes a Kings fan, that a substantial portion of NBA games in India will be the Kings, thats just not the way it works. Someone earlier said that the Kings being owned by Vivek means that the Kings merchandise will explode in India but I just don't believe it, just like I wouldn't believe that the Suns being owned by a Brazilian investor would have any effect on the popularity of the Suns in Brazil.

If you all have a problem with me engaging in honest debate on here thats fine I will leave, but I've been civil as possible on the issues surrounding the two cities, and haven't once make a comment that would be insulting to the efforts of Sacramento to keep its team.

And I'd say you're underestimating the impact. Yugoslavians became Kings fans, as soon as Vlade and Peja landed here and before the team actually became noticeably good. And some are still Kings fans. I'd say Indians would be likely to become interested in other teams in the NBA, especially if an Indian makes onto another team, but Ranadivé is going to bring their interest to the Kings initially, then other teams eventually.

Its not an issue that the hope is that Indians would become NBA and basketball fans, but that Ranadivé and the Kings would speed up India's interest in basketball and the league. I think that is true.

 

[uolj]

Yugoslavians became Kings fans, as soon as Vlade and Peja landed here and before the team actually became noticeably good.

To be fair, hoopster has said several times that there's a difference between a foreign player and a foreign owner. That, and the fact that the Kings were pretty good right off the bat and more importantly were exciting and fun to watch, and it's not exactly comparable.

That said, I think it's obvious that fans just getting into the game will gravitate to the best/most fun to watch teams, but they will also gravitate towards the teams that are marketed to them and exposed to them. If Ranadive can market the Kings to he people of India more than the championship contenders, they might get pretty good penetration. There's also the fact that with a new coach and maybe a new GM, the Kings will be competitive and fun to watch pretty quickly, too.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

To be fair, hoopster has said several times that there's a difference between a foreign player and a foreign owner.

In many cases, yes. But in this particular case, there are several reasons why it doesn't matter. The reasons have been pointed out already, but are being ignored by some.

One, there aren't any India-born players in the league currently and there aren't likely to be any at the time Ranadive becomes a majority owner or even for a few years after.

Two, unlike the countries other foreign owners hail from, India is not well versed in the sport and doesn't have any professional leagues. They have participated in the Olympics, but that's it. To many of it's 1.3 Billion population, the professional game will be completely new to them. When one particular team is pitched to them as the only team in the league with an Indian-born majority owner, don't think for one second that it won't have a big impact. That, and if that same owner makes a concerted effort to ensure his team has high visibility in his homeland, it'll have an even greater impact.

 

[UK_King]

I've only skimmed this thread so apologies if this has been mentioned, i know there are some knowledgable soccer fans on this forum, but Blackburn Rovers (relegated from the EPL last year) where taken over by Indian owners who have been an unmitigated disaster, the team has become a complete laughing stock in England, they are in danger of dropping to the third tier (league one) this year and have fired manager after manager for little or no reason.

thats by the by in all honesty but they have similarly tried to push Blackburn on the indian market and it's been a failure by and large, even though Soccer is a popular sport there and is growing, though cricket has religious status. They even went over to play pre season games there infront of meagre crowds and advertised the team eating their chicken product to the indian market which went down like a led balloon.

So my point is really, cracking that market, with a new sport, while admirable, is laughable in the extreme. Simply having an Indian owner in this case has done nothing for Blackburn abroad, and certainly not done anything for Premier league, or Championship football in India. It's said the most popular football teams over there are Bayern Munich, Chelsea and obviously Man U.

 

[whozit]

I've only skimmed this thread so apologies if this has been mentioned, i know there are some knowledgable soccer fans on this forum, but Blackburn Rovers (relegated from the EPL last year) where taken over by Indian owners who have been an unmitigated disaster, the team has become a complete laughing stock in England, they are in danger of dropping to the third tier (league one) this year and have fired manager after manager for little or no reason.

thats by the by in all honesty but they have similarly tried to push Blackburn on the indian market and it's been a failure by and large, even though Soccer is a popular sport there and is growing, though cricket has religious status. They even went over to play pre season games there infront of meagre crowds and advertised the team eating their chicken product to the indian market which went down like a led balloon.

So my point is really, cracking that market, with a new sport, while admirable, is laughable in the extreme. Simply having an Indian owner in this case has done nothing for Blackburn abroad, and certainly not done anything for Premier league, or Championship football in India. It's said the most popular football teams over there are Bayern Munich, Chelsea and obviously Man U.

Interesting. However, you gave indication that their marketing went against their culture (the Chicken thing, I might be misunderstanding you there) and the team itself is a self-made disaster. Both of those, if I'm reading you correctly, can't possibly help an already difficult task making it nearly insurmountable.

Does show the challenges and risks.

 

[UK_King]

Just to clarify the owners of the team made their fortune in the Chicken market so that product is well known in India, but using the team to advertise was a disaster.

suffice to say the fans hate them.

but really the point is more about cracking that market, even with well established Indian business men, they couldn't scratch the surface, and while Rovers are not a fashionable team by any stretch they've not seen any sort of bounce, in fact quite the oposite.

 

[whozit]

So your saying their the Indian version of the Maloofs?

I hope the new Kings owners take note of what that ownership group did wrong and not repeat it. I hope smart money doesn't equal lost money in that market. But the Homer in me says they have a good idea of what challenges they face and can meet them like they have so far.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Any one who wonders if any given product can be sold with the right packaging and marketing really needs to take a longer look at the history of marketing.
http://www.petrock.com/

 

[Kingster]

But the reason why the Lakers, Knicks and Heat are consistently broadcasted more is because they are either the best team or have a global brand. Again, human behavior is quite predictable, Michael Jordan was a global superstar because he was the best and people loved him. But when the Bulls became a bad team nobody worldwide cared about the Bulls anymore. People in Japan or France weren't showing off their Eddy Curry and Kirk Hinrich jerseys in 2002 in anticipation for the Bulls being good that season. People who have no ties to Sacramento or any team will root for the best teams or will root for the best players, thats how it will always be. So again my original point that the Kings being owned by an Indian has next to no effect on the Indian market. Ranadive can be valuable to the NBA in growing the NBA product. But for the Kings, its just irrelevant that he has ties to India, Indians wont care about Sacramento unless they have reason to, which is an Indian player or being an elite team.

Yes, the Indians will want to follow a winner. So in three years, about the time the new arena is done, the Kings are winners. Problem solved.

This is something that will develop over months and years, not a couple of days. And of course just because Vivek is an Indian doesn't mean the Indians would root for the Kings. It's much deeper than that. He's an Indian who happens to be a tech-savant billionare who has a vision and who has others in his partnership group, including Nexus Venture Partners, maybe the #1 venture capitalist Indian company in the world, who plan to use technology and their knowledge of the Indian market to leverage the Kings brand over the next decade. I don't pretend to know their methods of marketing the Kings and the NBA to the Indian market, but I tend to give guys like Vivek, the Jacobs family, and Naren Gupta the benefit of the doubt. There is a reason why Vivek is now having to turn sophisticated investors away from this deal. The word is getting out how exciting of an opportunity this could be - tapping into the emerging markets and leveraging that exposure for huge financial gain. Geography is becoming less important with the incredible advances in technology. Also, the Indian market is English speaking, their culture has been heavily influenced by the British influence, as has ours, their economy is rapidly developing, and so this would seem to be the right time to tap into this entertainment market for economic gain.

 

[Jkbiker]

News Flash - Kings sign free agent Vishesh Bhrigovanshi India's Star player!!!!

http://zeenews.india.com/sports/others/bhriguvanshi-stars-in-ongc-s-facile-win-over-rcf_759847.html

 

[Uk kings fan]

What a great thread

interesting on all sides... abut the venkeys they are a joke (think magoofs mixed with a jerry jones who doesnt know the sport)

however a foreign owner wouldnt be a bad thing in anyway

oh and on the soccer note nothing will ever take over that sport ever. it is the oldest sport in the world and apart from the USA it has a massive following i would say.

to look at a team trying to concer a new fan base look no further then the Jax Jags trying to corner the British NFL market this year

 

[kennadog]

oh and on the soccer note nothing will ever take over that sport ever. it is the oldest sport in the world and apart from the USA it has a massive following i would say.

Well, that's over-stating it. Many cultures over time have had various kinds of "foot/ball" games, including native Americans. They just didn't necessarily look like soccer. Rules for "leagues" or association sports in soccer/football was
laid down in 1863. (Soc came from association.

Best guess at first/oldest sport? Running.

Wrestling has cave painting evidence back to 7,000 BC.

And modern day cricket is older than modern day soccer.

One of the oldest team sports is polo. Polo originated in Asia around 2,000 years ago, making it one of the oldest team sports known to date. The first documented game occurred in 600 BC between the Persians and Turkomans.

Okay, I'm being contrary today. Back to your regular programming.

 

[Telemachus]

Well, that's over-stating it. Many cultures over time have had various kinds of "foot/ball" games, including native Americans. They just didn't necessarily look like soccer. Rules for "leagues" or association sports in soccer/football was
laid down in 1863. (Soc came from association.

Best guess at first/oldest sport? Running.

Wrestling has cave painting evidence back to 7,000 BC.

And modern day cricket is older than modern day soccer.

One of the oldest team sports is polo. Polo originated in Asia around 2,000 years ago, making it one of the oldest team sports known to date. The first documented game occurred in 600 BC between the Persians and Turkomans.

Okay, I'm being contrary today. Back to your regular programming.

Golf is pretty old as well.

 

[kennadog]

Golf is pretty old as well.

Yes, first mention on the modern game of golf was in Scotland in 1457 when it was banned, because it was interfering with the practice of archery (war-related).

As to golf-like games, though, this was interesting, though.

Dōngxuān Records (Chinese: 東軒錄) from the Song Dynasty (960–1279) describes a game called chuíwán (捶丸) and also includes drawings of the game.[3] It was played with 10 clubs including a cuanbang, pubang, and shaobang, which are comparable to a driver, two-wood, and three-wood. Clubs were inlaid with jade and gold, suggesting chuíwán was for the wealthy. Chinese archive includes references to a Southern Tang official who asked his daughter to dig holes as a target.[3] Ling suggested chuíwán was exported to Europe and then Scotland by Mongolian travellers in the late Middle Ages.[3]

Both bite from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_golf